CamelCaseNick

Welcome to Wikidata, CamelCaseNick!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

Welcome to Wikidata, CamelCaseNick!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

???

I hope this was a mistake. Every item is a wikimedia-lemma so this kind of use has no additional value. I added some more properties instead. Edoderoo (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to model it, since it describes two stations. And since Wikimedia article page (Q15138389) is used, when the item describes no unit in reality, I was assured, that this might be the way to do it. If you are sure, your instance of (P31) are a better way to convey this, then great and Thank You! --CamelCaseNick (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

USA

Deine Änderung findet keinen Konsens. @HarryNº2: zur Info. -- MovieFex (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Kunsthalle Hamburg located in the administrative territorial entity

Hi, why did you remove the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) on Hamburger Kunsthalle (Q169542) and replaced it with a deprecated value (diff)? Multichill (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: I did remove the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), because it is less accurate than the one I added and was not sourced. I sincerely have no idea, why it was added as a deprecated rank. I used OpenRefine to add the source to it based on list of heritage monuments in Hamburg (Q96314750) and as you can see, I had changed the rank with that. I found four other items with WDQS and fixed them now. Thank You! The next time I use OpenRefine I will be aware of this and look whether this not expected behaviour will happen again. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking closer I see it was already set to deprecated. I see this was done in this edit. That edit doesn't seem to be correct. I don't think this has anything to do with OpenRefine. Thanks for fixing. Multichill (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Stolpersteine Hamburg

Da meine Hinweise in der Liste vom Bot offenbar überschrieben werden/wurden:

• Albert Rosenberg sind lt. Lebensdaten ebenfalls Namensvetter, nicht identische Personen!

• Die 4 Wildas sind offenbar identisch, haben aber lt [1] an beiden Adressen mal gewohnt, auch die Fotos sind nahezu zeitgleich entstanden (Juli/August 2014), Doppelverlegung daher wahrscheinlich!

--UweRohwedder (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@UweRohwedder: Ja, leider unterstützt der ListeriaBot keine Tabellen in denen nur einige Spalten ersetzt werden. Einen Workaround gibt es: Man schreibt die Hinweise in die Abfrage. Das habe ich jetzt getan. Es gibt also vier Zeilen im Format ("Name" "Hinweis, der in die Tabelle soll"). Das ist nicht schon, aber es funktionert. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Structured Discussions October 2020 until December 2024

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:CamelCaseNick/Structured Discussions Archive 1 on 2024-12-11.

Stolpersteine

Hi,

I'm a bit confused by your action on Q105375302 and by your comment "Q26703203 is only for the Stolperstein project by Gunter Demnig; these are obviously machine-made and not hand-made by Demnig". Could you tell me more so I understand what is happening?

First of all, at the most basic level, leaving an item with no valid value for instance of (P31) is a very bad idea. It creates a lot of problem and violates constraints and should never be done.

Then, I see nothing on Stolperstein (Q26703203) (or on Wikidata:WikiProject Stolpersteine) that says it's for "Demnig Stolperstein" only (and even so, where is the item for "non Demnig Stolperstein" ?). Same for hand-made vs. machine-made. If you are right Stolperstein (Q26703203) need to be update and improved.

Finally, how do you know that a stone has been made by Demnig? (I see you added it on Stolperstein dedicated to Odette Starck (Q87640963) with no reference, if the first are copycat who says this one is not a better copycat?).

PS: I'm pinging Chabe01 who created these items and could tell us more.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: No, Stolperstein (Q26703203) does not need to be improved. It is a subclass of memorable paving (Q112776888) but is also a part of Stolpersteine (Q314003). (compare Wikidata:WikiProject Stolpersteine/Data Model which states the only valid creator (P170)) Saying it is a Demnig Stolperstein might help to clear things up. However, it is already implied due to said project being a Demnig-only project. The hand-made vs machine-made is just an easy way of distinction in this case, because Demnig always sets the text manually with the same fonts since his second Stolperstein. There is no such thing as a non-Deming Stolperstein in the strictest sense of it. However, I am more than happy to have a new item as Stolperstein-like commemorable paving stone for victims of Nazi Germany being a subclass of memorable paving (Q112776888) and a superclass of Stolperstein (Q26703203). Discussing those as part of the Stolpersteine WikiProject could also be a thing. However, Stolperstein is very much not a generic term and never was one. The English Wikipedia article on the project does not comment on similar non-Demnig projects. The German Wikipedia has a section on similar ones, mostly referring to them by different names. However, there is one case of a Stolperstein in quotation marks. Indeed, colloqially the term is used as a genericised trademark, while Demnig is actively legally working against that use. Regardless, that item is and was always used only for official Stolpersteine. So, yes, you are right to ask for clarification on the project's description. It is only implicit and requires at least some degree of domain knowledge. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

And to answer the question for Stolperstein dedicated to Odette Starck (Q87640963): The German Wikipedia cites this news article. The German Wikipedia is usually extremely well-organised when it comes to the distinction of Stolpersteine and Stolperstein-like “Gedenksteine”. The image of it being in the German list article and classified as a Stolperstein on Commons are already two good indicators for those being made as part of Demnigs project. (not documented domain knowledge: photographer and uploader of the image both are deeply interested in the project making it less likely a miss-classification in either project) They look so convincing that I am convinced Demnig would have a chance to even legally win against those being put in the ground. -- CamelCaseNick (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah my bad, I missed Stolpersteine (Q314003) (and I guess most people would also overlook this statements, I still think it should be clearer, for instance adding a precision in the description ?).

Not sure to fully understand or agree with you but yes, a new separate item would be useful (I need to think about how to model it exactly tho, as a superclass like you suggested or as a parallel class as a copycat). Meanwhile, I used memorable paving (Q112776888) to avoid the items being P31-less.

Beside that, my main remaining question is how to really know if a Stolperstein is official or not? Wikipedia can't be a good source and news articles are not always good, nor their are efficient (you have to look one by one). In Fontenay-sous-Bois, official and non-official stones seems to be almost side-by-side: https://w.wiki/EHUh ; the non-official being apparently older which means that Demnig probably saw them while posing his own.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

As I hope I made already clear in my first reply: You are absolutely right with respect to calling out the missing documentation and clarification.

I know of this problem for quite some time, and never got around to decide how to model this. (That the ID Q26703203 is only for official ones is widely used in queries etc. so just broadening its scope is probably not a good idea.) Probably, both items: a common superclass for copycat project and original project and a unique one for each distinct copycat might work, but – as you noted – it is already hard enough to find out if something is part of Stolpersteine or not. (Well, there is Steine der Erinnerung (Q20182962). And those are easy to find, because they document their entities on their website. Apparently, I had created Q98825185 for them, already – an item worth expanding, for sure.)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a good source here – I deliberately called it an indicator, not a source. And, yes, it is tedious to find news articles for every single one. That doesn't mean people aren't doing exactly that to document this project. There are more indicators, including as to how they look. (I don't know of any Stolperstein imitating project, down to the typesetting and characteristic imperfections. But researching it yourself or verifying the one you can find in Wikipedia list articles is the only way to be sure. And, I've done that for quite some Stolpersteine.)

What exactly is it you cannot agree with (or at least where you are not sure whether you can)? I am more than happy to clear things up as to what I mean, and based on a common understanding of the issue(s) at hand to resolve this so that we both are served with the modelling. -- CamelCaseNick (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)